United States v. Gilliam ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7446
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTONIO GILLIAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
    03-124-JFM; CA-05-1564-JFM)
    Submitted:   March 3, 2006                 Decided:   March 14, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Antonio Gilliam, Appellant Pro Se.   Stephanie Agli Gallagher,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Gilliam seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues    a    certificate      of    appealability.            
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
    absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.”    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).             A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the
    record    and    conclude      that   Gilliam   has   not   made    the    requisite
    showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and    legal    contentions     are    adequately    presented         in   the
    materials       before   the    court   and     argument    would   not        aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7446

Filed Date: 3/14/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021